House Trying To Rush Through Its Version Of PROTECT IP; Tech Industry Asks Why?

from the slow-down dept

For a few months now we've been hearing that the version of the PROTECT IP Act from the House of Representatives was going to be released "in a couple weeks." And yet, every time it got delayed -- often because new and unexpected opposition suddenly showed up. The supporters of PROTECT IP, such as the MPAA and the US Chamber of Commerce, had always figured that this was going to be the an extremely easy bill to pass, but the very vocal opposition caught them a bit by surprise. During this time, we kept hearing from various House members working on the bill, that they would be listening to all of the concerns. During a visit to Silicon Valley last month, Rep. Bob Goodlatte, who is helping to push PROTECT IP through the House, insisted that he'd heard the concerns from some in the tech community and that the bill would be noticeably different than the Senate version.

However, a variety of groups representing the tech industry -- including CCIA, NetCoalition and CEA -- pointed out a few weeks ago that they had not been consulted at all. This was problematic, since it was the entertainment industry driving PROTECT IP almost entirely, with almost no recognition of the serious problems it would cause for innovation and job growth. Just last Friday, members of the House working on PROTECT IP finally agreed to meet with these groups representing the tech industry, to hear their concerns. But rather than listening to those concerns and working together to fix the myriad problems with the bill, the latest report is that these Reps are about to release the bill they had been working on anyway, which retains basically all of the problems of the Senate bill... and that they're then planning an accelerated push to get it approved.

This is pretty disturbing. It suggests that even after they've been shown how this bill is a jobs-destroying, innovation-hindering, internet-breaking bill, they're going to rush it through anyway, without even listening to ideas on how to fix the bill. What a legacy these representatives must want.

As noted below, CCIA, NetCoalition and CEA have all asked members of the House of Representatives to slow down and let them actually be a part of the process. Let the tech industry be heard, and make sure that the problems with PROTECT IP aren't put into law, where those who support it will end up regretting it. Hopefully some folks in the House are willing to listen.

"It suggests that even after they've been shown how this bill is a jobs-destroying, innovation-hindering, internet-breaking bill, they're going to rush it through anyway"

What else do you expect? Everything this government has done, in the last three years, has been innovation-hindering, jobs-destroying, and business-styfling. It makes you wonder if they are doing this on purpose ... or if they just have their heads so far up the lobbyists asses that they can't see straight.

Re:

Have you noticed that for every bill signed Obama always has a lobbyist in the background?

Further, the contributions for this have been ridiculous. Sadly, I can't find any information in regards to how much they've paid people to look the other way as they're trying to pass this trainwreck of a bill.

Re: Re:

Much like I hoped ACTA would be signed, and it has, I hope PROTECT-IP does pass. We are already seeing the reaction to new IP laws, court rulings, and government actions. The internet is already routing around the problem, Newzbin2 Teaming Up With The Pirate Bay To Defeat Site Blocking, VPN usage going up, and software to defeat ICE's domain name seizures.

They thought the internet was a wild west before ... wait till they have a few more years of "IP enforcement".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Please...

Reagan has had his fair share of bankers that he's relied on. And I'm not going to get into Bush and his problems with the financial sector in taking "lobbying" dollars. This was more an issue about how the private sector uses a LOT of money to control the ones passing legislation.

I don't adhere to the Republican vs Democrat debate. It's partisan politics that does nothing but take focus away from the issues at hand.

Maybe next time you would do better to understand what is said than try to make this a partisan issue.

Re: Re:

In my neighborhood the Police Department has consistently received annual raises of at least 5% since 2009, while the majority of my neighbors have actually taken pay *cuts* (if they're employed at all). They've also bought for themselves many shiny new cars. And motorcycles!

In comparison, the my friendly local Fire Department voluntarily agreed to a complete salary freeze until the economy recovers.

I have come to understand that other neighborhoods witnessed much the same thing. So firing 10,000 *unnecessary* and *overpaid* cops seems like simple, good ol' fashions budget cutting to me.

Re: Re: Re:

Please take some reading classes and improve your reading comprehension skills. I said the law needs to be changed.

"And what do you care about copyright length?"

I care.

"The stuff you guys rip off is usually less than a couple years old."

[citation needed]

Plus when the government passes copy protection laws that are so unreasonable that the public deems them void, how is the public supposed to suddenly make the distinction between what constitutes a reasonable policy to follow?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

For the first story, read the comments. The reality is that only a small percentage truly support piracy, everyone else had a bigger or smaller restriction on support, and 30 disagreed entirely. When you add the numbers up, the pure support was low. Basically, Mike played the game of adding what might be considered the undecided voters onto his side to make the numbers work.

The second story is just Mike putting words in someone's mouth. Nothing much more to it.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

That was updated in the post and you are making a point that few are arguing, which misses the points being argued.

Some of the points being argued are the following

Not everything that's immoral should be illegal. The government shouldn't attempt to regulate morality.

Most people do not agree with our current IP laws. Agreeing with some concept of IP and the need to ensure that content and inventors are rewarded for their contributions is different from saying that government intervention is necessary or desirable (ie: through the passage of IP laws).

If the majority of people really believed in IP principles strongly enough, they will likely generally follow them without any law forcing them to. If piracy is such a huge issue then perhaps that means that people don't believe in having such strong anti-piracy laws and those laws should be substantially repealed if we are to have a representative government. and if it's only a small minority copying (ie: because they either believe it's OK or they think it's only slightly immoral) then it shouldn't have such a huge effect.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

(and the part of that quote that I would like to emphasize in the first link is the following).

"Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions."

Which is exactly the point. We, collectively, can not easily come to a consensus over how long to wait before it's appropriate to freely copy content, but we can easily come to the consensus that the governments timetable (and that their perpetual extensions that effectively make nothing ever enter the public domain anymore) is unacceptable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The majority of copyright holders would like to continue making a living off existing works without ever having to create anything new as a means of making a living.

So fucking what?

The founding fathers had it right: A 14 year copyright term renewable for another 14 if so desired. Authors are thus rewarded for contributing to the public domain while simultaneously being encouraged to create new works in search of additional income.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The reason you care is because you're greedy and don't want to pay for your entertainment."

IP should not be about 'ensuring that we pay for our entertainment' it should be about promoting the progress and serving the public interest. That IP maximists want to make it about something else is more reason to abolish it. The underlying reason we have economies isn't simply to create jobs, it's to provide the public with goods and services. If those goods and services can be provided at no cost without an economy then we shouldn't have an economy.

Things shouldn't be made artificially costly or expensive. The air you breath is free, for instance, so now you're greedy and don't want to pay for the air you breath. IP should not be about artificially charging for something that should be free. It should be about promoting the progress and expanding the public domain.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"They're not making the living they should, because their product is being taken without permission. That's wrong. Period, end of story."

I see, and are we being untruthful with this comment and using "they" to refer to artists?

Or by "they", are you being truthful, and referring to the middlemen and other people who aren't actually creating anything and actually are the ones whose positions/profits are being potentially (far from proven) harmed?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

if i assume everyone who opposes my viewpoint if a criminal or morally bankrupt I don't actually have to defend my own beliefs to myself, let alone to other people. Thats how we killed the indians, enslaved everyone else and its how we are gonna keep making money despite our business model being outdated while still being able to sleep at night.

But Mike, how can so many people with such deep pockets so willing to donate a lot of that cash to their congressmen & congresswomen possibly be wrong about something? Money is speech after all, the supreme court said so! If the opposition doesn't have any speech, err money, then how can we expect a good congressman & congresswoman to listen to them?

After all, rich billionaires must know best, that's why we should put billion dollar companies like BP in charge of protecting our oceans! That's why rep Joe Barton felt he had to apologize to BP over the oil spill!

Re:

Obama, a one termer president

Steve Jobs had told Obama that he’d be a one-termer if he weren’t more business-friendly. If anything, it lends credibility to the argument among some on the Left that Obama isn't "liberal enough" in his economic policies.

'What a legacy these representatives must want.'
more like 'we're not bothered about any legacy. just thinking of the money that has been spent on us to get it through. dont you people realise, there is nothing more important in the USA/World than the entertainment industry? how can anything/anyone exist without it? forget the medical, car, energy, banking and all other industries. they're nothing in comparison!'

CEA represents 2200 companies that build and sell consumer electronics (you know, the stuff that needs content to be valuable).

Seems like mostly companies who's business models are predicated on repackaging content produced by others, or who have already sewn up narrow walled gardens and are unwilling to play by any other rules.

Re:

You just named the companies that have been a shining star in this down economy. Tech has done well where old industries have not. But according to you, it seems we should choke them off as well just to be fair.

Re:

And who are the groups that support the bill? I mean your logic cuts both ways except only one group is trying to pushing through legislation that would benefit them without giving the other group a chance to be heard.

Re:

That is right they are platforms for content where others can choose to make money out of it.

The problem is some people don't want nobody making money or competing with them.

Also some politicians are blind and can't see that the internet has become the new dominant media were the old faces don't matter that much anymore, being friends with Bono Vox in the 80's was cool and a good career move, today it could sank you to the depths of darkness, because nobody listen to Bono anymore, paying attention to old media power could irritate the new media power and that is Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and others.

Re: Re:

There would never be an issue if the platforms were not based significantly on violating content. Simply, if someone chooses not to "compete" in the internet realm, they should just be left out, end of discussion.

You cannot try to re-set PROTECT IP as being anti-competitive, because those that it "hurts" didn't make any content to start with, they just "borroweed" it. That is disloyal competition at it's finest, not something that should be used as a reason to shut down a law.

Re: Re: Re:

The internet industry is NOT in competition with the content industry. That is like saying that farmers are in competition wit the trucking industry. Sure, with out the food the ship, the truckers would not be as valuable, but making trucking illegal, just so farmers can charge higher prices at a farmers market, is not the answer to falling food prices.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Your logic, AC 58, is flawed. You are ascribing to infinite goods properties that are only true of physical goods. The very definition of infinite declares that no loss can occur, because the quantity of product is infinite and never-ending. You also fail to understand that most who infringe do not do so for profit, but merely for their own use and enjoyment. And many, if they enjoy what they obtained, often go on to purchase related content or the infringed content itself. Others use infringement to obtain backups of media they already have, since discs can be become scratched and unusable. The lines are not so distinct as you would believe.

Basic economics clearly states that when the supply for a good is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price naturally gravitates to zero. This is a truth you refuse to believe, because it threatens everything you've based your worldview on. You, like other maximalists, are gripped by an irrational fear of change. Therefore, you find any excuse not to do so. You will not prevent technology from advancing or people from doing what is natural to do. You will succeed only in making yourself obsolete and irrelevant.

Mike, I believe you place too much faith in our elected officials. They will not listen. The system is broken. Completely broken. Such a system cannot be truly changed from within. Only from outside the system. That is why, despite your misgivings about their methods, collectives such as Anonymous are the only ones who can affect the legacy groups directly and decisively. And, I believe, that is part of what must happen for true change to occur. The legacy companies and organizations must be brought down, crippled beyond repair or recovery. That cannot be done from inside the system.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"You are ascribing to infinite goods properties that are only true of physical goods. The very definition of infinite declares that no loss can occur, because the quantity of product is infinite and never-ending. "

A wonderful argument, but it has been long since put to rest.

First off, "the product is only "infinite and never ending" if you choose to pirate and share it. Otherwise, it is in fact limited by the number of DVDs made and number of digital files sold. Infinite only exists when someone other than the owner decides to give it away for free. So we are already talking from the stand point of illegal acts, never a good starting point.

Second, the number of actual movies is not infinite and never ending, so we are never talking an infinite product base.

"Basic economics clearly states that when the supply for a good is infinite and the cost of reproduction is at or near zero, price naturally gravitates to zero. This is a truth you refuse to believe, because it threatens everything you've based your worldview on."

Nope, I believe it with all of my heart. However, I don't believe for a second that the legal supply is anywhere near infinite, and as long as you base your economic decisions on illegal activity, you will always fall into the logical track of "infinite supply means zero price". Quite simply, it is illogical to base your business decisions against illegal activity.

I am not gripped by any fear of change. I am fearful of the widespread acceptance of crime as some sort of valid substitute for actual business activity. It seems we have traded a business of dollars for a business of internet pennies. I am not sure this is very logical at all.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

First off, "the product is only "infinite and never ending" if you choose to pirate and share it. Otherwise, it is in fact limited by the number of DVDs made and number of digital files sold. Infinite only exists when someone other than the owner decides to give it away for free. So we are already talking from the stand point of illegal acts, never a good starting point.

Second, the number of actual movies is not infinite and never ending, so we are never talking an infinite product base.

Incorrect. You do not understand the nature of digital files. Once something has been converted into digital format and uploaded, it is everywhere. Copies of copies of copies of copies, ad infitum. The quantity of discs sold is irrelevant. All that is needed is one digital copy, and from that endless digital copies are inevitably made. It cannot be stopped. It cannot be avoided. It is the very nature of digital. It is as simple as highlighting a file in Windows Explorer and hitting Control+C and then Control+V - copy and paste. That is what you cannot comprehend.

Nope, I believe it with all of my heart. However, I don't believe for a second that the legal supply is anywhere near infinite, and as long as you base your economic decisions on illegal activity, you will always fall into the logical track of "infinite supply means zero price". Quite simply, it is illogical to base your business decisions against illegal activity.

Your logic, AC 67, is again flawed. Economics makes no distinction between legal and things that have been made illegal only at the behest of companies too gripped by the emotions of fear and greed to change. You must learn to understand what a bad law is, and that opposing or ignoring an unjust law is not wrong. And that copyright, in its current state, is indeed an unjust law. What is logical is to base one's business decisions against reality, not what you would wish it to be.

I am not gripped by any fear of change. I am fearful of the widespread acceptance of crime as some sort of valid substitute for actual business activity. It seems we have traded a business of dollars for a business of internet pennies. I am not sure this is very logical at all.

You do fear change, because you do not allow yourself to see how technology is changing how your business must be run if it is to survive. And I will point out again, that the sharing of copies - something that is a natural human behavior - has only been made illegal at the behest of companies who do not wish to change and adapt and admit that they no longer have the sole control over content that they once did. You must understand that some things that have been made illegal are not necessarily unethical, and that some things that are legal are unethical. One does not necessarily follow the other. Until you accept that, and accept that infringement falls into the category of wrongful illegality, you will continue to fail.

TechDirt is constantly rambling about the FUD packing MPAA and RIAA propaganda, but what about the FUD packing comments by the CCIA, NetCoalition and CEA? Where is the data to support job losses or adverse economic conditions? Perhaps it will spawn entirely new and innovative services to circumvent the monitoring efforts. Entirely new industries could be created because of this one piece of legislation just to circumvent the efforts of the legislation.

So before people start talking about job losses, maybe they should think about the potential job gains that will be seen because of new innovators finding ways around the monitoring efforts. But then again this is a legacy tech industry group trying to hold onto their existing business models, much as the MPAA and RIAA have been clinging to their business models.

For fun I looked up this bill on Maplight.org and it looks like lots of money is being thrown around to get this bill passed. However, one thing that I noticed that seems a little scary is that one of the top 5 donors to Patrick Leahy, the bill's sponsor, is Intellectual Ventures....

Re:

For fun I looked up this bill on Maplight.org and it looks like lots of money is being thrown around to get this bill passed. However, one thing that I noticed that seems a little scary is that one of the top 5 donors to Patrick Leahy, the bill's sponsor, is Intellectual Ventures....

That has much more to do with the patent reform act that passed a few weeks ago. IV was a big supporter of that. I don't think they care about PROTECT IP at all. Of course, now that patent reform has passed, I wonder if IV will still be a big donor to Leahy in the future...

Within 10 years there will be exactly two jobs in the US: CEO and IP lawyer. All the companies will be getting rich suing each other. Everybody else will be on welfare. Nobody will be producing anything except three chicken farmers in Louisiana and they won't be allowed to spend their cash.

None of those people listen to anything. Companies donate them money, and they repeat whatever they're told by those companies' lobbyists, without understanding or caring about what it means or what the consequences will be.
That's not "listening", it's more like "recording".

Re:

I could see Anonymous easily recuiting the many tech professionals who will be out of work because of this. The Anonymous people who have been arrested so far are amateurs compared the the pissed-off and out of work tech professionals they will certainly have no trouble recruiting. The kind of people that Anonymous will likely end up recruiting would know how to avoid getting caught, or at least not leaving enough evidence to convict at trial.